Author
Topic: Good Things People Say on the Internet (Read 57459 times)

Art Vandelay

I feel like that excerpt is going to far in the other direction. Bullying targets social outcasts, or even just easy targets, not specifically minorities. In practice, this does indeed translate to minorities being targeted quite a lot, but definitely not exclusively. While I can agree that we should acknowledge that bigotry can and often is a big part of it, it's equally harmful to suggest that it's the one and only cause of bullying, as it would then follow that white, straight, mentally healthy, whatever-other-traits-that-are-on-Tumblr's-shit-list kids can't be bullied.

While the broad left have been masturbating about cultural appropriation and spouting incoherent waffle about prejudice plus power they didn't notice that Fascism was back on the fucking march. I guess if every white dude is a white supremacist and a cultural vandal for wearing a cap backwards or a wallet chain you won't notice the blackshirts marching down the street, they look the same as the folks they're coshing. Until they come for you.

Honestly, being raised right would make one MORE likely to come out. Courage to look into oneself, honestly assess one's desires, and the security of self and one's social group to be able to be out with it.

...Why is that a good thing? Did you even read it? Apart from every single sentence being a painful attempt to force words into a physical manifestation of holier than thou attitude and faked intelligence the main messages seem to be:

a) The writer is a really smart and awesome person who we should be in awe of but they nevertheless have no people skills and have never been to school as they also lack almost all knowledge of history.

b) SJWs are literally responsible for millions of deaths because the word social justice is kinda like socialism and much like socialism social justice is also popular. (I have no idea how this logic works or why the writer doesn't like socialism and national socialism together.)

...Why is that a good thing? Did you even read it? Apart from every single sentence being a painful attempt to force words into a physical manifestation of holier than thou attitude and faked intelligence the main messages seem to be:

a) The writer is a really smart and awesome person who we should be in awe of but they nevertheless have no people skills and have never been to school as they also lack almost all knowledge of history.

b) SJWs are literally responsible for millions of deaths because the word social justice is kinda like socialism and much like socialism social justice is also popular. (I have no idea how this logic works or why the writer doesn't like socialism and national socialism together.)

The writer complains about people who punch Neo-Nazis and tries to argue the case that this makes them worse than the Nazis.

But rather than use any reasonable argument on how, for example, punching people in the face is wrong if it is not done in self defense, they go for crazy hyberboles to make up a fake reason to justify killing SWJs.

Note that they didn't try to justify punching SWJs by, oh let's say defending the freedom of speech and the body of Nazis from vigilantee attacks? No, they went for a silly story instead.

See, here's the thing. If you think that punching Nazis in the face is bad because people shouldn't be punched in the face, then why not say that? Why not argue that all politically motivated violence is wrong? Why spend time arguing that punching a person who promotes "peaceful" ethnic cleansing and supports people who promote violent, lethal, actual ethnic cleansing makes you worse than him and his entire faction rather than simply saying that punching anoyne in the face just for what they said is wrong?

The writer isn't attacking the attack, they are trying to discredit the entire SJW movement because they did not denounce the attack.

(Spencer has not denounced Hitler. So by that logic... If SJWs as a cause are now wrong-bad because they don't denounce a punch what does that say about Spencer and Alt-Right when they don't denounce Hitler and Nazis who causes millions of deaths?)

The writer complains about people who punch Neo-Nazis and tries to argue the case that this makes them worse than the Nazis.

But rather than use any reasonable argument on how, for example, punching people in the face is wrong if it is not done in self defense, they go for crazy hyberboles to make up a fake reason to justify killing SWJs.

Note that they didn't try to justify punching SWJs by, oh let's say defending the freedom of speech and the body of Nazis from vigilantee attacks? No, they went for a silly story instead.

See, here's the thing. If you think that punching Nazis in the face is bad because people shouldn't be punched in the face, then why not say that? Why not argue that all politically motivated violence is wrong? Why spend time arguing that punching a person who promotes "peaceful" ethnic cleansing and supports people who promote violent, lethal, actual ethnic cleansing makes you worse than him and his entire faction rather than simply saying that punching anoyne in the face just for what they said is wrong?

The writer isn't attacking the attack, they are trying to discredit the entire SJW movement because they did not denounce the attack.

(Spencer has not denounced Hitler. So by that logic... If SJWs as a cause are now wrong-bad because they don't denounce a punch what does that say about Spencer and Alt-Right when they don't denounce Hitler and Nazis who causes millions of deaths?)

Sure. It's satire trying to make a point, which, as far as I can tell, is:

1) Mao is responsible for more deaths than Hitler (true)

2) People think Neo-Nazis are bad because Nazis killed a lot of people (inexact)

3) Analogously, people should think that modern socialists are worse than Neo-Nazis because communism caused more deaths than nazism (forced analogy by simplified premises)

4) The Social Justice movement is basically the same thing as being a modern socialist (plain wrong. just cause I want access to HRT and to make out with my girlfriend in public doesn't mean I support any particular economic policies)

Therefore: 5) people who support punching Nazis should endorse even greater violence against social justice people (bad conclusion to a flawed argument)

The Nazis are considered the worst people on Earth, worse than Mao and Stalin, who both have higher kill counts, not because they "killed a lot of people", which is just bullshit. They're considered the worst people on Earth because they deliberately and systematically killed millions of people in specific social and ethnic groups. And here's where the comparison falls completely flat. Yes, Mao is responsible for the deaths of 78 million people, but he didn't set out and go "I'm going to kill these 78 million people because they're Jewish/homosexual/Japanese". In fact, if I remember correctly, and I cannot look it up at this exact moment, most of those 78 million deaths was due to famine. And that's the difference. Mao's policies killed people, but Hitler set out to kill, hell, set out to eradicate specific groups of people. And that's the difference, and that's where the comparison falls flat on the ground.

Logged

There is no plague more evil and vile to watch spread than the plague that is the Von Habsburg dynasty.

Sure. It's satire trying to make a point, which, as far as I can tell, is:

1) Mao is responsible for more deaths than Hitler (true)

2) People think Neo-Nazis are bad because Nazis killed a lot of people (inexact)

3) Analogously, people should think that modern socialists are worse than Neo-Nazis because communism caused more deaths than nazism (forced analogy by simplified premises)

4) The Social Justice movement is basically the same thing as being a modern socialist (plain wrong. just cause I want access to HRT and to make out with my girlfriend in public doesn't mean I support any particular economic policies)

Therefore: 5) people who support punching Nazis should endorse even greater violence against social justice people (bad conclusion to a flawed argument)

Of course the logic is bad. That's the point. It's showcasing how justifications for attacking people based on their politics can spiral out of control. Look at what happened at Berkeley. Even if you think it's okay to punch Nazis, Yiannipoulos is not a Nazi by any stretch of the imagination.

The Nazis are considered the worst people on Earth, worse than Mao and Stalin, who both have higher kill counts, not because they "killed a lot of people", which is just bullshit. They're considered the worst people on Earth because they deliberately and systematically killed millions of people in specific social and ethnic groups. And here's where the comparison falls completely flat. Yes, Mao is responsible for the deaths of 78 million people, but he didn't set out and go "I'm going to kill these 78 million people because they're Jewish/homosexual/Japanese". In fact, if I remember correctly, and I cannot look it up at this exact moment, most of those 78 million deaths was due to famine. And that's the difference. Mao's policies killed people, but Hitler set out to kill, hell, set out to eradicate specific groups of people. And that's the difference, and that's where the comparison falls flat on the ground.

Mao kept exporting food knowing full well his people were starving. And there's some evidence suggesting that he deliberately caused the famine.

It also implies that people are saying that punching Nazis will be free from legal consequences. No one has said that. Everyone who thinks it's morally fine to punch a nazi accept that doing so is illegal and should remain so.